list_available_dates

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates the tool is a read operation that lists dates, but it does not mention potential side effects, access requirements, or behavior on empty results. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a fully transparent disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with separate sections for Args, Returns, and Examples, making it easy to scan. However, the first two lines are redundant ('列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' and '查看本地和远程存储中有哪些日期的数据可用。' essentially repeat the same idea), which slightly reduces conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description provides all necessary information: parameter options, return format (JSON with date info and comparison), and two usage examples. Given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema (as per context), the description is complete and sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter 'source' with a default but no description or enum constraints, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by listing the three allowed values ('local', 'remote', 'both') and explaining each one's effect, adding critical semantic meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists available date ranges from local and remote storage. The verb 'list' and resource 'available dates' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'get_storage_status' or 'resolve_date_range', which serve different purposes. The purpose is immediately clear in both Chinese and English.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides examples of usage and explains the 'source' parameter options, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or restrictions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the parameter choices.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.